(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina tobacco report [serial]"

MojUU QafuUitia 

TOBACCO 
REPORT 

f967-f96S 




THE BULLETIN 



OF THE 
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Number 191 



May, 1968 



k^ 



James A. Graham, Commissioner 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Flue-Cured Situation and Outlook. 196S 4 

Burley Situation and Outlook, 196S 7 

Special Sales Conducted to Evaluate Loose-Leaf Packaging 

Techniques 9 

The Growth of Cigaret Excise Taxes Compared to 

Growers' Gross Receipts 13 

State Summary, 1967-6S 14 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report, 1967-6S 16 

Summary of Dealer and Warehouse Resales. 1967 18 

Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco 

by States, 1967 - 18 

Stabilization Receipts by Belts, 1967 19 

Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

Burley Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments, 196S 20 

North Carolina Burley Allotments, 196S 22 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops, 1919-1967 23 

North Carolina Burley Crops, 1928-1967 24 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses and Operators by 

Belts and Markets 25 

Domestic Cigarette Consumption by Kinds, 1967 Back Cover 



For free distribution by the Tobacco Section, 
Markets Division, North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C. 
Curtis F. Tarleton, Director, Division of Markets 
J. H. Cyrus, In Charge, Tobacco Marketing Section 
R. L. Mozingo, Tobacco Marketing Specialist 




FOREWORD 

The nineteenth annual issue 
of the North Carolina Tobacco 
Report has been compiled and 
prepared by J. H. Cyrus, in 
charge of the Tobacco Mar- 
keting Section, and Roger L. 
Mozingo, tobacco marketing 
specialist, Division of Markets 
of the North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. In addi- 
tion to his responsibilities as 
director of the Tobacco Sec- 
tion, Mr. Cyrus is also a 
member of the Board of Di- 
rectors of the Tobacco Tax 
Council and the Tobacco Growers Information Committee. 
Credit is due the Cooperative Crop Reporting Service of the 
North Carolina and United States Departments of Agriculture, 
the U. S. Tobacco Division Consumer and Marketing Service, 
and the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service for their 
contributions. The continued cooperation between these agencies 
and all other segments of the tobacco industry is essential in 
order to meet the challenges facing this important industry 
today. 

This issue of the Tobacco Report recognizes the Tobacco 
Growers Information Committee, Incorporated, for the effective 
job it is doing through its executive secretary, W. H. W. 
Anderson, in collecting and distributing tobacco information 
which concerns all segments of the tobacco industry. TGIC has 
placed special emphasis on keeping the public informed on the 
controversial issues related to smoking and health. During its 
ten years of service, TGIC has brought before the public eye 
many scientific findings by reputable scientists and medical 
men to refute some of the unfounded statistical health claims 
made against tobacco. 

Thus, TGIC is herewith recognized for the outstanding service 
it is rendering to the tobacco industiy and the public in 
general. 



--^a^^^ (C^^uO., 



Flue-Cured Situation and Outlook 1968 

As one turns back the pages of flue-cured tobacco history, it 
appears that there has never been a time when the "Golden 
Weed" was not in some kind of trouble, ranging from minor 
local difficulties and marketing problems, to major crises reach- 
ing throughout the entire industry. History also reveals that 
down through the years the tobacco economy has always sur- 
vived each crisis and has rebounded with a stronger economic 
structure, as solutions were found to remedy the problems. 

Thus, the problems of the 1967 marketing season were not 
new to the tobacco industry. However, the normal ailments 
associated with tobacco sales were compounded last season by 
an unusual combination of circumstances. These included the 
increase in loose-leaf sales, the fear of declining prices, a crit- 
ical labor shortage at all levels from the farm through the 
processing plants, questionable health issues centered around 
nicotine and tar that became involved in the market, the in- 
crease in tax burdens by state and local governments, plus the 
largest crop of tobacco that has been produced since 1964. 

Gross Income Up 

Even with all of the congestion, confusion, uncertainties and 
attacks on the "Golden Weed," North Carolina tobacco farmers 
came through the 1967 season with approximately $12 million 
increase in gross income. Current market data indicates that 
North Carolina flue-cured growers sold close to 810 million 
pounds in 1967 for an estimated $518 million, and in 1966 grow- 
ers sold 761 million pounds for a return of $506 million. How- 
ever, it is doubtful whether growers' net incomes equaled the 
previous year, because of the tremendous rise in cost of pro- 
duction. In fact, the small increase in gross income last year was 
due entirely to an increase of about 50 million pounds in volume 
of sales because the average market price showed a decline of 
2.5 cents — down to 64 cents compared to the record high of 66.5 
cents in 1966. 

Shift in Demand 

The major contributing factors to the 2.5 cents decline in 
average price last season was the emphasis placed on nicotine 
and tar by the FTC and some members of Congress, as well as 
attacks on tobacco by government agencies and other anti- 
t(^acco groups. The position taken by these groups regarding 
nicotine and tar are considered to be very asinine since there is 



no scientific data to back their new line of attack. In fact, the 
report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General in 
1964 states: "There is no acceptable evidence that prolonged 
exposure to nicotine creates either dangerous functional change 
of an objective nature or degenerative disease. The rapidity of 
degradation to non-toxic metabolites, and the low mortality 
ratios of pipe and cigar smokers when compared with non- 
smokers indicates that the chronic toxicity of nicotine in quan- 
tities absorbed from smoking and other methods of tobacco use 
is very low and probably does not represent a significant health 
problem." 

To date there have been no scientific findings in this country 
or in any other country to refute this report of 1964. Tlius, it is 
indeed unfortunate that the nicotine issue became involved in 
the 1967 market causing confusion and uncertainties within the 
buying industry, which resulted in a noticable shift in their 
purchases of certain grades of tobacco. 

An analysis of buying companies' purchases from the 1967 
crop indicates that the biggest shift was in the (BK) grades 
(all leaf grades of variegated color) and (H) grades (thorough- 
ly ripe or over-ripe smoking leaf) . 

A comparison of the first three years under acreage-poundage 
quotas show that buying companies purchases of the (BK) 
grades in 1965 were 298 million pounds or 95.3 percent of (BK's) 
from that crop. In 1966 company purchases of (BK's) amount 
to 270 million pounds or 86.6 percent of all (BK's), but last 
season the records show that buying companies only bought 
176 million pounds or 48.8 percent of the (BK's) out of the 1967 
crop. 

A similar shift occurred in company purchases of (H) smok- 
ing leaf grades last season. Here again, the records show that 
company purchases of (H) grades during the 1967 season 
amounted to only 16 million pounds or 38 percent of the smok- 
ing leaf available to them. This is compared with 27 million 
pounds or 74.7 percent from the 1966 crop, and the purchase of 
23 million pounds which amounts to 74.5 percent of all the (H) 
grades available in the 1965 crop. Approximately 75 percent of 
the 282 million pounds of flue-cured that went under Govern- 
ment Loan last season was tobacco in the (BK) and (H) grades. 

This shift in purchases, which can be attributed at least 
partially to the emphasis placed on nicotine and tar, deprived 
farmers of millions of dollars in economic returns, due to the 
decrease in market demand and price paid for some of their 



up-stalk, thoroughly ripe leaf tobacco with full body, flavor and 
aroma. 

There was very little change in the quantity or percentage 
of tobacco purchased by companies from the straight leaf (B) 
grades, cutter (C), lug (X), priming (P) and non-descript (N) 
grades in the 1967 crop, compared with the past several years. 
However, there was some evidence of a shift in the distribution 
of the bottom of the stalk grades between domestic and export 
buying companies during the 1967 season, which reflected the 
increase in demand for thinner, milder tobacco by some exporters 
because of the economic boycott against Rhodesian tobacco. 
This increase in demand for tobacco from the bottom half of 
the stalk caused some priming, lug and non-descript grades to 
sell at record high prices. 

Cigarettes Up — Tobacco Used Down 

Despite the increased attacks on smoking, the domestic 
cigarette industry once again moved ahead to a new plateau in 
cigarette production. The industry manufactured an estimated 
576 billion cigarettes in 1967. This is an increase of about two 
percent over the previous year. However, the domestic use of 
flue cured tobacco again failed to keep pace with the increase 
in cigarette production. In fact, based on current data, the 
domestic use of flue cured in the 1966-67 market year dropped 
to a twenty-year low of 687 million pounds. 

The drop in domestic use can be partially attributed to the 
continued increase in production of filter tips, the increase in 
length of filters on some brands, the expanded use of reconsti- 
tuted sheet tobacco which makes it possible for manufacturers 
to more fully utilize the entire leaf purchased, and a small 
increase in the use of burley and imported aromatic leaf in 
recent years. 

Exports Up 
Exports of flue cured tobacco reached an all-time record 
high of 587 million pounds during the 1966-67 market. Exports 
for the current market year will probably be several million 
pounds less than the record of last year, but foreign sales are 
expected to remain well above the average exports for the last 
several years. 

The improvement in quality of U. S. flue cured tobacco under 
the acreage-poundage program, and the economic boycott 
against Rhodesian tobacco were the two major factors 
accounting for the recent gain in the foreign market. Future 



increases in exports will depend a great deal on how long the 
economic sanction is continued against Rhodesia, and the ability 
of U. S. flue cured to compete with the world market price. 
Economic Outlook 

Thus, as we begin another year, there is evidence that the 
state of the tobacco economy will continue to be basically sound 
and fairly stable, even with all of the confusion experienced 
last season. 

The total available supply of flue cured for the current market 
year of 3,521 million pounds (producer sales of 1,248 million 
pounds plus a July 1, 1967, carryover of 2,273 million pounds) 
is down approximately 26 million pounds from the previous 
year even though stabilization stocks moved up to 800 million 
pounds. This is the third consecutive year that the total supply 
has shown a decline under the acreage-poundage program. This 
brings the total available stocks down to approximately 2.7 years' 
supply, with 2.5 years' supply considered to be normal stocks. 

The economic outlook for the entire tobacco industry is 
potentially good. The farm sales of flue cured in 1968 will 
likely be 100 to 150 million pounds less than in 1967. A strong 
demand for medium to thin body cigarette tobacco will continue 
in 1968. Cigarette production and consumption will likely show 
another slight increase during the year ahead. Most smokers 
will continue to smoke in 1968 regardless of how many doctors 
quit smoking, but their smokes may become milder because 
of outside influences on the consumers demand. 

Burley Situation and Outlook 1968 

What appeared to be an unfavorable growing season for many 
burley growers in 1967 resulted in a thin vintage crop of tobacco 
that coincided with a shift in the demand of buying companies 
toward the thinner, milder grades of tobacco. The lighter crop 
caused production to drop to the lowest level since 1960, but the 
average price paid for the 1967 crop reached a new record of 
$71.71 per hundred. 

On January 30, 1968, the Secretary of Agriculture proclaimed 
marketing quotas for the 1968, 1969, and 1970 crops of burley 
tobacco. A referendum was conducted by mail ballots during the 
week of February 26 to March 1 in which 97 percent of the 
growers voting approved the continuation of burley quotas for 
the next three years on an acreage basis. 

The quota of 556.8 million pounds announced by the Secretary 
for the 1968 crop makes 249,686 acres available for allotment 



this year compared with 249,926 acres in 1967. Therefore, most 
farm allotments will be the same in 1968 as in 1967. 

The total stocks of hurley have shown another decline for the 
third year since the record high of 1964-65. The 1967-68 barley 
supply is down to 1,941 million pounds, which is 2 percent be- 
low the previous year, and the smallest total supply of burley 
since 1962. 

The 1968 market demand for burley tobacco will likely follow 
the same trends established during the 1967 season. The strong- 
est demand will continue to be for medium to thin body tobacco. 
The average support price for the 1968 burley crop has in- 
creased to 63.5 cents per pound — up 2.8 percent from last sea- 
son. Thus, the general market prices should be well in line with 
the record prices paid last season, if growers can produce 
another medium to thin body crop in 1968. 



Special SoEes Conducfed f-o Evaluate 
Loose-Leof Packaging Techniques 

The rapid changes taking place in the flue cured market will 
inevitably lead to a complete transition in the Carolinas and 
Virginia from a tied market to an untied market. This situation 
has created much interest in all segments of the tobacco in- 
dustry for a more efficient package to handling loose-leaf to- 
bacco from the farm through the marketing channels. 

Early in 1967 a request was made by a committee of the 
Tobacco Association of the United States for a program to 
evaluate various techniques for handling loose-leaf flue cured 
tobacco. This challenge was accepted through a joint project 
conducted by the Tobacco Marketing Section of the North Caro- 
lina Department of Agriculture and the Tobacco Research De- 
partment of N. C. State University with South Carolina and 
Virginia cooperating. 

Special loose-leaf packaging sales were organized at six 
locations in the Carolinas and Virginia. The locations selected 
were Dillon, South Carolina; Lumberton, Greenville, Durham, 
and Burlington, North Carolina ; and Danville, Virginia. At each 
location twenty to thirty farmers were selected to participate in 
the project. Each participating farmer packed loose-leaf tobacco 
into three designated treatments using tobacco from the same 
general stalk position in each treatment. 

The following three treatments were selected for evaluation : 
(1) the pextile netted sleeve, which was 42" in diameter and 
80" long and made from twisted paper yarn; (2) the conven- 
tional method of dumping tobacco onto baskets as normally used 
by growers in marketing untied tobacco. However, at four 
locations pre-sheeting of untied tobacco, using the standard 96" 
X 96" burlap sheet was substituted for the conventional method. 
(3) The cardboard container (open-end type) which was 36" 
long and 30" wide and had height adjustable from 15" to 30" 
depending on the volume of tobacco to be packed. Farmers were 
requested to pack approximately 200 pounds of untied tobacco 
into each package in each of the treatments. 

Two hundred lots of each treatment were prepared and 
marketed at the four locations in North Carolina, with a total of 
600 lots in each special sale. The South Carolina and Virginia 
packaging sales were limited to 300 lots with 100 lots in each 
treatment. The six sales consisted of approximately 3,000 lots 



of tobacco with a total volume of about 550,000 pounds. 

Group meetings were held with participating farmers at each 
location, and they were instructed in methods of preparing each 
treatment and other details relative to the special sales. 

The sales were scheduled approximately one week following 
the opening of markets at each location. When the tobacco was 
received at the warehouse, each lot was identified with a special 
tag; and accurate weights were recorded for each container of 
tobacco. The lots were arranged on the warehouse floor accord- 
ing to treatment and sold through the regular auction sale. 
After the sale, each lot was reweighed to determine weight 
losses. A third weight was obtained from the purchaser when 
the loose-leaf packages were received at the prizery or process- 
ing plant. The data obtained on each lot of tobacco were the 
weight before sale, the weight after sale, and the weight at the 
green prizery or processing plant. 

Tables 1 and 2 below show the percent in weight loss for 
before sales vs. after sales by treatments at two locations in 
North Carolina. The Greenville data represent sales where the 
conventional method was used as one of the three treatments. 
Data from Durham show a comparison of the pre-sheeting pack 
with the netted sleeve and carboard container. Table 3 gives the 
average weight loss for all locations which includes South Caro- 
lina, Virginia, and the four locations in North Carolina. 

Table 1: Greenville, N. C. 



Treatment 


Mean Weight in 
Before Sale 


Pounds 
After Sale 


Percentage 
Loss In Weight 


Netted Sleeve 
Conventional 
Cardboard Container 


1G9.41 
163.82 
168.77 


167.14 
161.23 
168.05 


1.34 
1.58 
0.43 




Table 2: Durham 


N. C. 




Treatment 


Before Sale 


After Sale 


Percentage 
Loss in Weight 


Netted Sleeve 
Pre-Sheeting 
Cardboard Container 


183.94 
177.61 
177.50 


183.00 
176.06 
177.28 


0.51 
0.88 
0.12 



Table 3 : Combined Locations — Dillon, S. C. ; Danville, 

Virginia ; Lumberton, Greenville, Durham, Burlington, 

North Carolina 



Treatment 


Before Sal 


Netted Sleeve 


173.85 


Conventional and 




Pre-Sheetinp: 


167.42 


Cardboard Container 


163.78 



After S.ile 
172.36 



165.60 
163.09 



Percentage 

Loss in Weiglit 

0.86 

1.15 
0.42 



10 




Warehouse floor display of special loose-leaf packaging sale. Open end 
cardboard containers extreme left and net sleeves extreme right are 
compared with the conventional method of handling loose-leaf in the center. 



At each individual location, the greatest weight loss before 
sale vs. after sale was with the conventional and pre-sheeting 
treatments, followed by the netted sleeve, with the cardboard 
container (open end) showing the smallest amount of loss in 
weight. 

Although the amount of tobacco lost from the open-end card- 
board container and the netted sleeve was less than the amount 
lost from the conventional and pre-sheeting treatment, the 
packages were less desirable because of other factors. TTie buy- 
ing firms indicated in a survey that neither the open-end card- 
board container nor the netted sleeve were as acceptable as the 
pre-sheeting method, because of handling and stacking prob- 
lems, accessibility of tobacco, and durability of containers. 

When the pre-sheeting method was compared to the con- 
ventional method, it was determined that the loss in tobacco was 
reduced by approximately one half with pre-sheeting using the 
standard 96" x 96" sheet. In handling a two-hundred pound lot 
of untied tobacco, the comparison indicated that the estimated 
gain for pre-sheeting over the conventional packaging would be 
2.06 pounds of tobacco. (See Table 4) 



II 



Table 4: Before Sale to Prizery Comparison 

Percentage 
Loss in Weight 

Conventional 2.17 4.34 lbs. 

Pre-Sheeting 1.14 2.28 lbs. 

Estimated Reduction in Losses 

by Pre-Sheeting 2.06 lbs. 

The 1967 studies of packaging techniques indicated that pre- 
sheeting would be an immediate step that could be taken to 
improve the handling of loose-leaf tobacco. However, most buy- 
ing companies agree that pre-sheeting is not the ultimate 
answer in handling untied tobacco. The future loose-leaf pack- 
age must have the following features: (1) prevent excessive 
loss of tobacco; (2) allow ease of sampling by graders and 
buyers; (3) be adaptable to mechanical handling; (4) allow 
compact stacking in hauling and in temprorary storage. 

Several other packages, in addition to the three treatments 
in the original study, were added and investigated on a limited 
basis as the packaging study progressed through the latter 
sales of the season. These included synthetic sheets, cardboard 
boxes with tops and wooden veneer crates. Some of these 
packages attracted favorable comments from several buying 
firms and will be given further study during the 1968 market- 
ing, along with other types of containers that show a potential 
for meeting the needs in handling loose-leaf tobacco. 



(12 



v> 1 


1 1 


1 1 




Z ' 


1 1 


1 ' 




o 








i 








\ 


v» 




V- 


\ 


X 




/ 


\ 


< 




f 


\ 






> 


\ 


< 




k 


\ 


w 




1 


\ 


O 




1 


^ 






1 


' 


V Q 




1 




\ Z 




1 




\ ■* 


w> 


1 




\ t^ 


£ 


/ 




V < 












\ 




\ ^ 


O 


\ 




\ "■ 


O 


t 


^ s 


\ 


O 


\ 


II 


\ 


O 


\ 


o «- 


\ 






Q- a 

- 


\ 






lo« 


1 






" " o 


1 






Si-i'-s 


1 






















C >- c 


M 














S 9 •- 


V 






n °*-^ 


\ 






» 5 .i 


\ 






in " 1 ^ 


\^ 






Z ;^ 2 S 


^^ 






O "i TO D 


^y 






MILLI 


1 1 \ 


1 1 





13 



State Marketing Summary 1967-68 

CONGESTION is the term most generally used when referring to 
conditions in North Cai'olina flue cured markets last season. A bumper 
crop throughout the area, abnormal growing conditions, a rush to sell 
loose-leaves, and fear of declining prices earned 1967 the designation 
"Granddaddy of 'em all." The season ran through the latest date since 
1946; however, due to repeated market holidays, the number of sales days 
was the lowest in a number of years. 

Many factors entered the market last season to subdue the anticipated 
record high gross income. Growers for the first two years under 
acreage-poundage had failed to produce their allotted pounds; however, 
in 1967, almost without exception, producers sold their quotas, undermark- 
etings frcm the two prevous seasons and 23 million in excess of their 
100 per cent. In 1968-69 growers in North Carolina will be allotted 
712,222,904 pounds, the smallest quota since going under the new program. 

In 1967 North Carolina producers sold 752,243,870 pounds of flue-cured 
at $63.69 for $479,327,667 on the forty-four markets in North Carolina. 
In 1966 growers sold 708,840,692 pounds averaging $66.65 for $472,433,226. 

TYPE 13: Considerably lower prices were recorded on Border North 
Carolina markets in the 1967 season compared with levels of the previous 
year. However, the value was up considerably due largely to an increase 
of nearly one-third in volume sold. Marketings consisted of larger 
percentages of poor quality leaf and low and fair lugs than in 1966. Less 
good qualities were sold. Also, the proportion of smoking leaf was much 
less. Tobacco with unripe characteristics more than doubled that offered 
last season. Around three-fourths of all sales contained poor to fair leaf. 
Offerings consisted of 72 percent loose leaves; and over 60 percent of the 
untied grades averaged the same or above their tied counterparts. 

Individual grade averages suffered losses in a majority of cases 
compared with last year's quotations. A few grades dropped as much as 
$18 per hundred pounds, but most were down $1 to $8. Leaf offerings and 
tied non-descript showed the greatest decline. Increases of mainly $1 to $3 
occurred for some of the better qualities, untied primings and several 
grades of untied lugs and non-descript. 

Border markets sold for producers 149,876,333 pounds at $65.62 for 
$98,348,832. Last season growers sold 126,477,944 pounds at $68.65 for a 
gross income of $86,828,958. 

Border Belt markets opened August 10 and closed on November 8 
after experiencing numerous holidays. 

TYPE 12: Quality changed very little from an overall standpoint when 
compared to 1966. Eastern Belt growers sold a smaller percentage of poor 
quality and non-descript tobacco; however, the proportion of variegated 
leaf (B-K) and smoking leaf (H-K) increased, amounting to almost 
one-third of total sales. Marketings consisted principally of fair to poor 
leaf, fair and low lugs, non-descript and low smoking leaf. 

Average prices dropped $1 to $13 per hundred pounds below 1966 
quotations for most grades. Tied averages were down $1 to $8, while most 
untied declines ranged from $1 to $4. Largest losses centered on unripe 



14 



variegated leaf and non-descript. Small increases occurred for better 
quality tied leaf and cutters and untied primings. Over one-half of the 
untied grade averages equaled or exceeded their respective tied averages. 

The seventeen eastern markets sold for producers 346,319,605 pounds at 
$64.42 for $223,106,758. This compares to 328,736,141 at $68.59 for 
$224,475,919 in 1966. 

Eastern Belt markets opened August 24. The first market closed on 
November 8 and final sales were held December 12 at Wilson. The season 
consisted of 51 days — ten less than in 1966. 

TYPE 11-B: Lower prices were paid for a slightly larger volume of 
tobacco sold during the 1967 crop season on Middle Belt markets com- 
pared with last year. Growers placed the largest percentage of sales under 
loan than in any previous season. Quality of the tobacco, according to 
Federal grade standards, improved slightly over 1966. Over two-thirds of 
the sales were in untied form. 

Marketing consisted of smaller proportions of poor qualities and non- 
descript than during the previous season. Principal marketings were poor 
to fair leaf, fair lugs, and low smoking leaf. 

As on other belts, losses in grade averages from last year's levels 
occurred chiefy for leaf and smoking leaf. Variegated cutters, some lugs, 
and medium to heavier bodied non-descript also decreased. Greatest losses 
were for unripe, immature, and red leaf and medium to heavy non- 
descript in untied form. 

Untied tobacco, of chiefly $1 to $9 per hundred showed greater declines 
than tied. In contrast to last season, most tied averages exceeded untied, 
namely by $1 to $3. The few gains recorded were for some of the better 
qualities, some lugs, and most primings. 

Growers sold 145,328,001 pounds at $62.81 for $91,276,366 in 1967. This 
compares with 143,394,974 at $64.31 for a gross of $92,214,964 in 1966. 

Markets opened September 7 and ended December 19, the latest closing 
date in twenty years. 

TYPE II-A: The quality of offerings from Old Belt growers showed 
more improvement than any other belt in 1967. However, due to adverse 
market conditions, both poundage and value of the crop dropped consider- 
ably below last year's figures. Additionally, Old Belt growers placed a 
whopping 33.1 percent of gross sales under loan — compared with 18 per- 
cent in 1966. 

The improved quality was due primarily to a decrease in the percentage 
of non-descript offered. A larger portion of lemon tobacco was sold than 
during the 1966 season. Although variegated sales made up over 50 percent 
of the sales, as on other belts, more of this tobacco was on the ripe side. 
Principal marketings were fair to poor leaf, fair lugs, and low smoking 
leaf. 

Averages fluctuated chiefy $1 to $2 per hundred with gains slightly 
more numerous than losses. A few top quality grades of tied leaf and 
cutters were up from $4 to $12. On the other hand, untied averages were 
down mainly $1 to $9 but ranged to $15 lower than during last year. Lowest 
declines centered on unripe variegated leaf and heavy non-descript. Nearly 
two-thirds of the tied averages were chiefly $1 to $4 above their untied 
counterparts. 

(Continued on Page 21) 

15 



00 



o 

V) 

o 



C>ft* 



Tj^O^t-CNCDOCO"^ 



COOitOCMtMOOO'X' 
t--lCOOCOtDCOTf 



C^COi-Hi-H^OilOiX) 



GOi-JtDOi^ir3O:i0000^OiTHt--G0,-IC0(N 



i-ICNas^COCOtOTj^OfMCOOlT-H-^Tt-* 

of c<r <3r N cT CO GO cT o' M i^D iri" 00 o r>r t: 

XCTSCOOOCOC5CCtr-OOi-iOi0^lOirD-<3<i- 

01C0C<JOir5T:l<i— |-^^CDTfC0LO"^GST 

OO' i-T gT C^ rH*" l> ^ O 1-H O^ O i-T t> I> 00 L 

r-( rH (M f-H -^ t3< 1-H ''^ W i-H i-H t 



(N ^ com 1-1 CC T 



Tfiot-^-^icooi-Hcgoooot-ini-HOit- 



^?£5;D^^tOCO(D 



CDCD^CDCOCDCDCDtDtDtD^tOtOcbcOCD ' COl 



o 

"«5 
%/% 

o 

in 

3 
O 

O 



o 
u 
u 

o 

o 
H 






OrHOl'-HOrtINO 

^ O "^Ca CO^l/5 C5^0 t-^ 

^ rH rt ■^ CO iHCO 

H 
Q 

p oooii^coocoiSco 

pq -^OOOCOCOC-^cq^ 



^ ?C CO Tf CM -^ 00 -^ 



H 

1-3 

y CO 00 !>■ (M '^ "iD 



<M 05 -^ CO O (M 



1-1 O (N "<1" iH GO 
r-l -rj* rH (M 



TjtO-^CCt-aJt-fM 

t- lo lo ITS "Tt ■^* irj CO , - 



t-CDC0lO00lO'^'X> 
O5CMCC(MaiTj'O400 



> 1-H CO Oi CD 00 CD 
;_00 lO O O^ '^'^ 

• OS oi"t:-rcro"i-i 



CO'**rHiMlCCOTri/5CDt-rMi-(OOTj<OCO'^ 

t>WTt*ooi-iu:)Ooot>'^oinMOioioo 

-^^coo^co oi_cD o^oo "^'*„c^^^'-ic^„<^'>ii> 
cT T)<" lo' ciT »H ^^ rn" c^" co" cxT Ti^ t>^ CD (nT its" ■r-T cT 

OCDCDT-nCiTfiCiOfM'^CDCOOOOCD'^QO 



T-HTHNr-lTrrJi^rttMrHT-l 



'~l(M0050t-i-(CDOi'>3'^OOiOOOOCOOO 
l>CD'^(M0^t>WCDO^l0fMC0C0TrC0C> 
t^Ci_O0 O 00 Oi_CD lO^CO "^i-J^oq^<>J_00 cd '^^oo^ 

CD lo LO iri'co "^ Grir2""rj«"oo 00 -^ T^ t:^ o^ 00 -r^ 

OiTfCOCDO^pfMCDCNOO^J^O'^Cit-lCOOOCD 
CNCOCOOO'-l'^COCOCD'^CDC^i-li-ii-li-iCO 



L^ (.'J UJ L^ I— 1 IT- uu uu o CO CD (.N »— I ira lij ITS 

rH_iccDCj_ooi^ai_o^'>it> ^c^aii-H 

CD 00 oTij^ oT CO ot^r-Too o ■ t-'co o o 

CO lO fM (M CO t- 00 i-H O 00 Oi »-H 00 Oi 

CM 1—1 ■^# 1—1 CO CO tr- 



CDCOlOCOt-t-tr-t-CDCOCOTfcO'^l'OOOO 
O-^OOO^i-HCOOJCiTHOiOLOOoqcOOOOi 
lOC^COlCUDTj^TtcOCD'^'cO'^T-jTrcOCDCO 
CDCDCOCDCOCD^COCDCO^CDCDCDCOCDCO 



■OOOCOt-T-liCi-Ht-CO'-'OOt-CO-^Xt-'^ 
COC^10t>'-^OOu^(^300C^J•^C^IO^f5^r5C- 
l« tH in Tt_0 CD 00^ CO CO Tf 00 '^^O^^Oi^ rH_ CD CD 
Cr- OOl rf OJ CD cToi" 00 cTm rH -tt CD Oi i-T 1/3 
t^i— (t-COCOOOi-HCOCOOOt-COi-C-^C^It-CO 
W3int--_00 t>COOmCDOrHCO^i-<COt-^TfOO 
Oi O OS OO t>COo"cOOO T-l OiCJOS (>foo 
1-1 CO 1-1 -rj* '^ i-H r:}* CO 1-H rH CD 



u 



o 

z 






0) +j 

:=! c 
•c 3. 



■^ a 

o c c i:3 



0) o »; > ol2 -S -w 






t. >>j= o en's -a 



.t;-^ — ■ 



x^'ca'3c«3wC o rC~33'ot.-SooScsc^-^S^'^ 



16 



OStHCOCOO'MWCOCOCO I 00 
lCt>THtDooOOCQi-HOO O 



i-l"^asCOOOOOOCM(N 

tDrHLrSt-i-HOOt^tDOi'^ 

OOOC^Ot-Hi-IoWi-hS 



CO CO CO 
CO CO Tjl 
CD «? "X" 



^tr-GOt-THi— it-t-OCD 
■^Oit-t-CD<3i"^0000'^ 



I^GO 00 CO CD^rH (M (N '^^ 
3 00 fX) i-r-rjrorco 00 LC 
^rHCDoOWX-OCOt- 
S^N CO C^t> W o O^i^^ 

r CO oi" t-T T-T o" oT cT o 



CO 



(M CJ T-H rH i-H t 



OOOO-CO'XiCOCsOC 



> Oi 00 o c\i T-t ir- CO 

H O rH O »0 IHi I— t as 
] CD CD 00 lO lO (M '^ 



• 00 lo OS Oi O CD Tf 



(>] x> l-i 



CD(NOOTt*US'^CD"^'^ li-H 

Oi oi CO X5 C<i t:jI '■ij^ ^* r-H (>i f>j 

lOmcDWCD?DCDCD^X> I CD 



t-tNC-CDCDCOt-t-CDCD I'^i-I OOCOfN [OOCO 

-^C^OiirSrHOOOSC^MCN '-H'^ "^ CO Oi OilT- 

aiioot>ot>c>ioir4t> oco thoocd aJco 

lOlOtDiccDlOCDlLOX>lO ICDXS t-CDCD 'CDX) 



CO 05 rH t> t- (N 00 <3s "«:J< -^ 
CQ ^"^^CO^'^'^^M '^^■^^(M <3^CO^ 

^^ T-HCOast-'XiCOi-HO'^O 

W oi oTco'cr- r-T 05 cTi-raTar 

PU CO (M tH ^oj 

H 

Q 
W 

W 
1-3 



OOOt-Tt<OSCOCDCOCDt- 
irSOtr-rHCDOOOOOlCOO 



COi-HCOCDt-HCDIOtHC^CD 
(MCOIMi— ICOXi-^COCOi-l 



■3 •^OlO'^'^O'-I^CO'Xi 

^ O CO ^ CO OS rH 10 0<M t- 

\3^ ■^CDcqcO'^OO'^^COt^'^ 

CQ t^lO t3J"co'"(M*"'^*"0 00' 



w 



■^t-1— tCDCDOSO0-^(MCN 



0005lC(M"^CqOrHlO(M I^H 

^ T)< CO W iH CO O ^ mo 00 

aio5C0CDC0Ti5ir3'^,-3co oq 

lOlC^DirStDtD^^CDCD 'cD 



CDCNOJrJ^rHCOlOOOt-C^ 
tMrHi—lT^CO'^t-Oli— ICD 
OOCOCOiOt> t>O00^t- 

O O CJ oo'^t-^'^ o'lo-^^co" 

COCDCDT-tasOOi'XirHr^ 
rH^LO i-H_CD_lO CO tH^ CO Cq^ 

Ci t- OS ciT 00 oTaTt-ar 



Q 
« 

W 

[V] 00 00 X) Tji '^ O 00 CO OS 

jr; OiX>osooaiiriioco 
CQ Oi^ 0^ cv]_ 00 c^ o T-t 00 00 

_ CDrHt-oTlr-'-rc^'rHT-r 
Q O CD IM -^ 00 CO O rH CO 



^ o 



OCDCNTairJ^OOOOWt- 
00'^(>]COX>"Tt<t-OCO 
OsCDCOOlTi^O^ IC O CO 
CD O CO oTlC t>I> rH C> 
lOOJlOOOTH-^OiCO-^ 

CO i-H oq -^ (N T-H (M in 







00 ^ 00 

oo_^o_o 


c- 

02, <c 


00 to 


CO 


m tH (M_^ 


CO IM 

m co_ 


rH 00 


H 
b 

b- 


oo'co" co" 


i-H 
00 



■^ CD CO 
*-l CD 10 



Q 

tH O^ ^ 
i-H 10 ^ 
^."^^ ^ 

o:. cd" U oi'cD^t-" 
1000 ' CO tooo 

in ctT ^ 



woo PQ O 00 00 
T-H !>• Q-) (M in T-H 

■- *■ 1^ ^ 100 



'^COCOfMOO-^'^t-i-HCD 
mCNCjCDOoOOr-tOiCO 

osioot-ot>cooioi> iwjt.'j 
lomcom^mcomcDm 'iccd 



co^t- 



CD i-H^ 

ocTo 



oTi-H Sh CO t-H '■^ 

o CO rZ in CD T}< 

t- Oi in t- eg I 00 '-H 

Oi CD in CO tr- 01 00 

Oi CO i-I 00 CD oi CO 

'^ "^ ^ CD CD I CD CD 



oooiOco'^'<*ot-o:it- 

t^OOiOii-HT-HinoCDt- 
"^^OJ^CO CD Tj< 05 ^CO CO C- 

10 -<:)^cio"crcvr»n xj^Tt'otT 
oo-^T^ioooir-cO'-^oo 
o t- rH_ 00 in o5^ th_ 00 '^ in 
OS 00 r-rcD"croo cTooToT 

CO (M I-H rH (M 



oooor-icDcoinoiOOr-fi: 

rifOiOOCSOCOCO-^! 

oocot-^t-cs^ocoo-*^ I 
CD ooi-H oT'^ inocoinc 

CDt>COt-0:tC^05C^CO' 

CD^cg i> ^o_io 00 '^co 

OOt-00 CDQOoi"oOt>in 



< O Q H El, W J O OT p: 






cq o S S S « (i; w ^ >H 



o 



a 13 

O o 






17 



Summary of N. C. Dealer and 
Warehouse Resales - 1967 



Belt 



Pounds 



^°''Dealf .... 1,562,209 960,315 0.97 

Warehouse 8,760,982 5,737,895 5.47 

Eastern Belt „„„.,-„, i e^o cci n 7» 

Dealer 2,821,504 1,668,551 0.78 

Warehouse" .........10,327,433 6,190,866 2.87 

Middle Belt .! : „„„ ore ^ no 

Dealer ....'.;....;... 1,638,250 937,355 1.08 

Warehouse 5,038,533 3,102,822 3.31 

°"^Dlaler 1,409,515 826,979 0.80 

Warehouse 5,459,411 3,491,572 4.64 

Total Flue-Cured Resales 37,017,837 22,916,355 4.69 

^"%^eatr' 258,696 173,610 1.68 

Wa^4house' 1,333,344 940,237 8.68 

Total Burley Resales 1,592,040 1,113,847 10.36 



Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured 
Tobacco by States - 1967 



Producer Sales Gross Sales 
State Pounds Average ''"""a^ Average_ 



N. C 752,243,870 $63.69 ^89,261,707 $63.61 

ir' iq7qfi7 917 63.34 142,165,404 63.28 

l^C lllilllll 64 40 161659,411 64.45 

Ea. ,:.:. 182;f98;499 65.05 19^'222.568 65.02 

pfa 24,498,022 69.38 27,223,843 69.31 

Total 1,247,482,456 64.05 1,317,532,933 64.01 



Sf-abilizaf-ion Receipts by Belts - 1967 



Producer Stabilization 

Belt Type Sales (lbs.) Receipts (lbs.) 

Old Belt IIA 

Middle Belt .., IIB 

Eastern Belt 12 

S. C. Border Belt 13 

■Ga.-Fla. Belt 14 



Total 11-14 



248,087,248 


84,497,100 


34.1 


145,328,001 


49,671,879 


34.2 


346,319,605 


79,779,736 


23.0 


300,851,081 


57,172,794 


19.0 


206,896,521 


10,955,971 


5.3 


1,247,482,456 


282,077,480 


22.6 



Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of 
North Carolina 



N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State Out of State Tobacco Sold in N. C. 
(Pounds) (Pounds) 
1967 1966 1967 1966 

Va 45,086,359 51,694,338 9,104,003 7,206,162 

S. C 23,562,734 9,821,461 23,281,383 16,285,158 

Ga 21,047,751 13,397,020 99,094 300,681 

Fla 551,376 218,590 3,619 21,876 

Ala 3,719 6^276 

Total 90,248,220 75,131,409 32,491,818 23,820,153 



Burley Tobacco Movement In and Out 
of North Carolina 



N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State Out of State Tobacco Sold tn N. C. 
(Pounds) (Pounds) 
1967 1966 1967 1966 

Tenn 2,866,242 3,498,270 404,992 525,068 

Va 9,486 8,202 835,044 1,209,496 

W. Va 19,896 24,002 

Ga. 31,480 4,029 

S. C 618 578 

Total 2,875,728 3,506,472 1,292,030 1,763,173 



19 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments 
1968 



County 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Anson 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Chowan 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe ... 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Iredell 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Martin 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 
Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pender 

Person 

Pitt 

Randolph 



20 



No. Farms 


Acreage 


Poundage 


Rank 


1,455 


3,988.38 


6,576,841 


36 


921 


1,141.29 


1,757,070 


51 


264 


333.34 


482,265 


61 


2,309 


8,061.40 


14,004,485 


22 


1,674 


4,812.77 


8,948.878 


30 


3,055 


6,239.74 


11,737,737 


26 


1,679 


2,798.31 


5,269,324 


39 


1 


.48 


822 


68 


1 


.02 


13 


71 


265 


405.96 


682,635 


59 


2 


3.95 


8,092 


65 


354 


1,139.51 


1,980,778 


50 


1,922 


7,786.06 


13,080,626 


24 


2 


2.87 


3,362 


67 


1,027 


2,430.01 


3,531,834 


47 


178 


463.53 


807,769 


58 


1 


0.29 


501 


69 


4,671 


14,033.30 


30,949,410 


4 


1,683 


7,206.15 


13,098,124 


23 


2,430 


4,583.85 


8,528,834 


32 


1 


.06 


67 


70 


1,827 


2,758.82 


4,264,320 


44 


811 


984.66 


1,408,908 


55 


4,146 


13.123.43 


24,554,335 


10 


929 


3,070.71 


4,573,023 


43 


1,448 


9,755.45 


19,206,238 


14 


2,238 


4,060.26 


6,337,893 


37 


2,631 


9,659.58 


16,989,797 


17 


1 


3.88 


5,083 


66 


123 


227.14 


401,893 


62 


2,159 


11,349.70 


18,914,190 


15 


1,246 


10,148.57 


20,988,417 


13 


3,155 


7,678.30 


12,619,564 


25 


2,066 


4,996.73 


9,397,482 


29 


3,418 


12,207.83 


24,411,688 


12 


897 


2,762.64 


5,043,036 


40 


749 


2,169.30 


3,947,705 


46 


799 


1,030.41 


1,522,134 


53 


5,284 


19,360.62 


38,475,497 


2 


897 


4,596.79 


8,502,450 


33 


1,271 


3,484.69 


6,136,241 


38 


1,851 


11,970.00 


24,459,000 


11 


1,475 


7,240.25 


14,851,197 


20 


385 


815.34 


1,220,429 


57 


1,534 


4,153.41 


7,185,237 


35 


2,891 


15,327.63 


29,784,962 


6 


83 


180.32 


285,550 


63 


215 


404.37 


655,404 


60 


1,785 


5,279.79 


8,919,193 


31 


963 


2,811.68 


4,798,021 


42 


367 


928.26 


1,427,316 


54 


1,622 


2,796.41 


4,984,541 


41 


1,754 


8,106.13 


14,,349,794 


21 


2,602 


21,377.04 


41,365,450 


1 


1,602 


2,768.35 


4,207,846 


45 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allofments 
1968 (continued) 



Connly ?fo. Faiiiis 

Richmond 921 

Robeson 4,619 

Rockingham 2,944 

Rowan 21 

Sampson 5,077 

Scotland 532 

Stokes 2,791 

Surry 3,062 

Vance 1,387 

Wake 3,616 

Warren 1,797 

Washington 283 

Wayne 3,066 

Wilkes 930 

Wilson 2,103 

Yadkin 2,724 

Unadjusted 

State Total 114,992 

Under-marketing 1967 
Over-marketing 1967 

Net over-marketing 
N. C. Total 

Allotment 1968 114,992 



1,762.02 


2,645,474 


48 


17,532.81 


36,207,987 


3 


11,054.61 


18,628,442 


16 


22.11 


27,852 


64 


12,948.32 


25,681,943 


9 


977.05 


1,641,042 


52 


9,741.27 


15,544,933 


19 


9,287.81 


16,790,906 


18 


6,948.89 


11,562,684 


27 


16,554.86 


30,042,867 


5 


5,159.11 


8,073,019 


34 


814.05 


1,331,671 


56 


12,320.66 


25,740,252 


8 


1,301.66 


2,073,603 


49 


14,357.07 


29,222,053 


7 


6,847.61 


11,513,731 


28 



400,649.67 



744,371,760 



1-71 



1,808.56 
18,102.89 



2,554,765 
34,703,621 



384,355.34 



32,148,856 
712,222,904 



1-71 



STATE SUMMARY 

(Continued from Page 15) 

Growers sold 110,719,931 pounds at $59.97 for $66,393,853. In 1966 
growers sold 110,231,633 at $61.44 for $67,721,879. 

Markets opened September 25. Final sales were held January 18 after 51 
sales days. 

TYPE 31: A marked decline in the volume of N. C. Burley Tobacco, 
coupled with outstanding quality brought the highest average price on 
record in 1967. The record high of $69.98 compares to $67.28 recorded for 
1966. 

Markets opened January 28, closed December 20 for the Christmas holi- 
days, and resumed on January 3. An estimated four-fifths of the crop was 
sold prior to the holidays. This compai-es with two-thirds the preceding 
season. Final sales were held on January 9 at West Jefferson. 

All grade prices were higher in 1967. Increases were chiefly $1 to $8 per 
hundred pounds. The largest increases occurred for lower quality offerings 
with green grades showing gains as high as $12. Most grades averaged 
$3 to $27 above their respective support prices; however, a few better 
quality lugs and flyings were even with their support levels. 

The three N. C. markets sold for producers in 1967-68 a total of 13,775,950 
pounds at an average of $69.98 for $9,640,310. This compares with 16,086,374 
at $67.28 for $10,822,832 in 1966. 



21 



N. C. Burley Tobacco Allotments 
1968 



County 



Acreage 
No. Farms Allotment Rank 



Alleffhanv 540 218.73 9 

Ashe ^ :::;.. ...,: 2,535 i,o46.56 3 

Avery ^;:'1'I! 247 108.35 11 

Brunswick 1 , 0.09 31 

Buncombe 2,946 1,400.65 2 

Burke 14 4.47 21 

Caldwell 19 6-74 20 

Cherokee 194 68.64 15 

Clay 217 84.53 12 

Cleveland 9 3.39 22 

Davidson 2 0.97 25 

Gaston 1 0..50 28 

Graham 685 301.51 8 

Granville 1 „0.12 30 

Haywood 1.917 947.22 5 

Henderson HO 42.47 16 

Iredell 3 1.18 26 

Jackson ■■:.:: 285 107.85 10 

McDowell 70 24.56 18 

Macon 238 76.80 13 

Madison 2,809 2,066.71 1 

M^l^ ::::: : 963 470.36 7 

Polk 6 1.75 24 

Rutherford 55 23.46 19 

IS : : : aw I'-'i " 

Transylvania 72 „„ -i^ L 

Watauga 1,663 727.75 6 

Wilkes 8 1.83 23 

Yancey 1.795 983.05 4 



State Totals 17,629 8,819.83 1-31 

Source: USD A Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 



22 



North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops 
1919-1967" 







yield Per 












Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 


Year 


No. Acres 


(Pounds) 


(1.000 lbs.) 


(1,000 Dollars) 


Price 


1919 


521,000 


612 


319,276 


$157,340 


$49.30 


1920 


621,900 


681 


423,703 


88,271 


20.80 


1921 


414,900 


594 


246,540 


60,402 


24.50 


1922 


444,000 


611 


271,170 


74,572 


27.50 


1923 


544,300 


728 


396,354 


81,998 


20.70 


1924 


473,500 


585 


276,819 


62,597 


22.60 


1925 


536,200 


696 


373,352 


83.756 


22.40 


1926 


546,700 


692 


378,274 


96,762 


25.60 


1927 


639,600 


755 


482,982 


100.414 


20.80 


1928 


712,400 


692 


493,132 


93,450 


19.00 


1929 


729,300 


665 


484,630 


89,470 


18.50 


1930 


768,000 


757 


581,200 


74,733 


12.90 


1931 


688,500 


692 


476,382 


42,024 


8.80 


1932 


462,500 


624 


288,750 


34,949 


12.10 


1933 


667,800 


794 


530,133 


85,530 


16.10 


1934 


486,500 


847 


412,055 


117,999 


28.60 


1935 


612,500 


635 


572,625 


116,418 


20.30 


1936 


591,000 


765 


451,975 


101,856 


22.50 


1937 


675,000 


883 


595,815 


143,058 


24.00 


1938 


603,500 


844 


509,470 


115,428 


22.70 


1939 


843,000 


964 


812.540 


123,893 


15.20 


1940 


498,000 


1,038 


516,835 


85,792 


16.60 


1941 


488.000 


928 


452,825 


132,291 


29.20 


1942 


539,000 


1,052 


566,810 


221,538 


39.10 


1943 


580,000 


935 


542,200 


219,074 


40.40 


1944 


684,000 


1,077 


736,990 


317,628 


43.10 


1945 


722,000 


1,100 


794,310 


349,148 


44.00 


1946 


802,000 


1,138 


912,970 


451,639 


49.50 


1947 


783,000 


1,139 


892,205 


374,513 


42.00 


1948 


594,000 


1,239 


739,380 


368,040 


49.80 


1949 


621,000 


1,178 


731,530 


352,508 


48.20 


1950 


640,000 


1,441 


858,140 


477,508 


55.60 


1951 


735,000 


1,331 


978,375 


523,358 


53.50 


1952 


735,000 


1,222 


898,090 


448,582 


49.90 


1953 


674,000 


1,235 


832,305 


447,076 


53.70 


1954 


686,000 


1,204 


889,490 


483,003 


54.30 


1955 


658,000 


1,499 


978,775 


520,845 


53.20 


1956 


579,000 


1,661 


961,495 


496,324 


51.60 


1957 


443,000 


1,469 


650,780 


358,442 


55.10 


1958 


429,000 


1,718 


736,855 


427,307 


58.00 


1959 


458,500 


1,533 


702,942 


407,055 


57.90 


1960 


457,500 


1,836 


839,870 


512,731 


61.10 


1961 


463,000 


1,797 


832,215 


541,468 


65.10 


1962 


483,000 


1,890 


912,810 


549,594 


60.20 


1963 


460,500 


1,999 


920,660 


535,622 


58.18 


1964 


416,000 


2,282 


949,450 


549,875 


57.90 


1965 


375,000 


1,840 


690.050 


442,796 


64.20 


1966 


409,500 


1,859 


761,360 


506,605 


66.50 


1967** 


409,500 


2,017 


826,150 


528,395 


64.00 



*Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reporting Service. 
**Preliminary for 1967. 

Note: 1966 and 1967 includes values for some production not marketed. 



23 



North Carolina Burley Crops 
1928-1967 







Yield Per 












Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 


Year 


No. Acres 


(Pounds) 


(1,000 lbs.) 


(1.000 Dollars) 


Price 


1928 


3,600 


650 


2,340 


$ 690 


$29.50 


1929 


5,500 


730 


4,015 


863 


21.50 


1930 


7,200 


750 


5,400 


853 


15.80 


1931 


7,100 


710 


5,041 


464 


9.20 


1932 


6,500 


735 


4,778 


726 


15.20 


1933 


9,200 


785 


7,222 


715 


9.90 


1934 


5,500 


870 


4,785 


809 


17.50 


1935 


5,200 


925 


4,810 


1,025 


21.30 


1936 


6,000 


900 


5,400 


2,095 


38.80 


1937 


9,000 


975 


8,775 


1,787 


21.40 


1938 


8,600 


900 


7,740 


1,308 


16.90 


1939 


8,100 


1,070 


8,667 


1,447 


16.70 


1940 


6,500 


1,050 


6,825 


1,242 


18.20 


1941 


6,200 


1,075 


6,665 


2,093 


31.40 


1942 


6,600 


1,150 


7,590 


3,211 


42.30 


1943 


8,500 


1,225 


10,412 


5,102 


49.00 


1944 


12,000 


1,390 


16,680 


8,157 


48.90 


1945 


13,000 


1,500 


19,500 


7,568 


38.30 


1946 


9,800 


1,475 


14,455 


5,999 


41.50 


1947 


9,600 


1,560 


14,976 


6,335 


42.30 


1948 


10,300 


1,680 


17,304 


8,012 


46.30 


1949 


10,800 


1,440 


15,552 


6,750 


43.40 


1950 


10,500 


1,700 


17,850 


9,175 


51.40 


1951 


12,200 


1,750 


21,350 


11,572 


54.20 


1952 


12,000 


1,680 


20,160 


9,818 


48.70 


1953 


11,400 


1,800 


20,520 


11,019 


53.70 


1954 


12,700 


1,920 


24,384 


12,680 


52.00 


1955 


9,800 


1,900 


18,620 


10,651 


57.20 


1956 


9,400 


1,850 


17,390 


10,747 


61.80 


1957 


9,600 


1,975 


18,960 


11,073 


58.40 


1958 


9,300 


2,000 


18,600 


11,978 


64.40 


1959 


9,800 


2,060 


20,188 


11,426 


56.60 


1960 


9,500 


1,940 


18,430 


12,016 


65.20 


1961 


10,400 


2,090 


21,736 


14,346 


66.00 


1962 


11,000 


2,185 


24,035 


14,421 


60.00 


1963 


11,000 


2,285 


25,135 


13,573 


54.00 


1964 


9,700 


2,165 


21,000 


12,054 


57.40 


1965 


8,900 


2,030 


18,067 


12,159 


67.30 


1966 


7,900 


2,320 


18,328 


12,371 


67.50 


1967** 


7,800 


2,100 


16,380 


11,460 


69.90 



*Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reporting Service. 
'*Preliminary for 1967 with value based on market average. 



24 



Norfh Carolina Tobacco Warehouses 
and Operators by Belfs and Markets 

BORDER BELT 

Chadbourn (one set buyers) 

Producers— Jack W. Garrett, Crickett Garrett 
Green-Teachey — J. C. Green 

Clarkton (one set buyers) 

Bright Leaf — Charlie Ford, Broodie Martin, Jimmy Martin 
New Clarkton Warehouse — J. M. Talley, J. C. Hartley 

Fair Bluff (one set buyers) 

Powell— A. H. Powell, B. A. Powell 

Riverside — Aaron Parrish 

Planters — Carl Meares, Randolph Currin 

Fairmont (four sets buyers) 

People's Big 5 — E. J. Chambers, Leggett & Garrett Company 
Davis-Mitchell-Planters— F. A. Davis, Harry & Jack Mitchell, G. R. 

Royster, Daniel 
Holiday-Frey— E. H. Frye, J. W. & J. M. Holliday 
Square Deal 1-2-3— W. G. Bassett, C. L. Smith 
Star Carolina 1-2-3— W. M. Puckett, A. M. Best 
Liberty-Twin States— P. R. Floyd, Jr., Paul Wilson, F. P. Joyce, Joe 

Pell, R. J. Harris 
Big Brick — A. D. Lewis, Jr., A. W. McDaniel 

Fayetteville (one set buyers) 

Big Farmers 1 & 2— P. L. Campbell, A. R. Talley 
Planters — J. W. Stephenson, J. C. Adams 

Lumberton (three sets buyers) 

Carolina — J. L. Townsend, Jr., James Johnson, Jr. 
Smith-Dixie — Furman Biggs, Sr. & Jr. 
Hedgpeth— R. A. Hedgpeth, R. L. Rollins 
Liberty — R. H. Livermore 
Star, Inc.— Hogan Teater, D. T. Stephenson 
Lumberton Cooperative — C. E. McLaurin, Mgr. 

Tabor City (one set buyers) 

By-Pass Carolina & New Farmers — R. C. Coleman, Mrs. Harriett 

Sikes 
Planters — Don Watson, Mgr. 

Whiteville (three sets buyers) 

Crutchfield— G. E. & R. W. Crutchfield 

Lea's Big Dixie — William Townes Lea, Louie Love 

Moore's— A. H. Moore, C. C. Mason, C. F. Jeffcoat 

Nelson's — John H. Nelson, Jim Smith 

Planters — A. 0. King, Jr., J. W. Peay 

25 



Gray-Neal Farmers — Columbus County— A. Dial Gray, J. L. Neal 
Liberty — J. W. Hooks, I. A. Barefoot & Sons 
Smith— Ernest Smith, Joe T. Smith, Jr. 

EASTERN BELT 

Ahoskie (one set buyers) 

Basnight No. 1-2-3 — L. L. Wilkens, Sr. & Jr., H. G. Veazey, H. Jenkins 
Farmers No. 1 & 2— W. M. Odoms, Pierce & Winbome 

Clinton (one set buyers) 

Carolina— L. D. Herring, C. J. Strickland, N. L. Daughtry 
Ross No. 2 — Clarence Kirven, Jr., W. K. Beech 
Farmers— J. J. Hill, W. M. Buck 

Dunn (one set buyers) 

Big 4 Warehouse — Tom Smothers, Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee 
Planters — Leland Lee, J. M. Smothers 

Farmville (two sets buyers) 
Bell's— Bell Brothers 

Fountain & Monk No. 1 — John N. Fountain, Mgr. 
Fountain & Monk No. 2 — John N. Fountain, Mgr. 

Planters & Prewits — Chester Worthington, W. 0. Newell, B. S. Correll 
Lee's — Gordon Lee 

Goldsboro (one set buyers) 

Carolina— S. G. Best, D. V. Smith, D. Price 
Farmers No. 1— Carl Holloman, J. F. Hill 
Big Brick — J. R. Musgrave 
Victory — Richard Gray, Clarence Whitley 

Greenville (five sets buyers) 

Cannon's — W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail 

Farmers — W. A. Tripp, T. P. Thompson, Harold Watson, Jack Warren 

Star-Planters — Harding Suggs, B. B. Suggs, Sr., Asley Wynne 

Keel — J. A. & B. J. Worthington, Fenner Allen, C. B. Jones 

New Independent — Bob Cullifer, F. L. Blount 

Raynor-Forbes — Noah Raynor, A. H. Forbes, Billy Clarke 

Harris & Rogers — R. E. Rogers 

New Carolina — Larry Hudson, Laddie Avery, C. C. Harris 

Kinston (four sets buyers) 

Central — W. I. Herrings, Bill King 

Farmers — John T. Jenkins, Johnny Beamon 

Knott's 1 & 2— H. G. Knott, W. E. Brewer 

New Dixie — J. T. Jenkins, Jr. 

Sheppard's — J. T. Sheppard 

New Central — W. L Herring, Bill King 

The Star Warehouse No. 2 — Dempsey Hodges, Virgil Harper 

Banner — K. W. Loftin, John Heath 

Brooks Warehouse — Rogers Brooks, Jr., Frederick Brooks 

26 



Kobersonville (one set buyers) 

Red Front-Adkins & Bailey — J. H. Gray, Jack Sharpe 

Planters No. 1 & 2— H. T. Highsmith, E. G. Anderson, Frank Everett 

Rocky Mount (four sets buyers) 

Cobb & Carlton No. 1 & 2— W. E. Cobb, J. C. Carlton 

Mangum — Roy M. Phipps 

Planters No. 2-3— W. H. Faulkner, Mgr. 

Smith No. 1 & 2— James D. Smith 

Works Warehouse — R. J. Works, Jr. 

Peoples Warehouse Company, Inc. — Guy Barnes, Gene Simmons, 

Jimmy Walker 
Farmers Warehouse, Inc. — J. C. Holt Evans, Mgr. 
Fenners — J. B. Fenner 

Smithfield (two sets buyers) 

Farmers No. 1 & 2 — Joe Stephenson ^ 

Big Planters — Mrs. W. A. Carter, Paul McMillan, Jack Wooten, Frank 

Skinner 
Gold Leaf No. 1 & 2— R. A. Pearce 
Stephenson Riverside — Gilbert Stephenson 
Wallace No. 1 & 2 — Lav?rence & Dixon Wallace 

Tarboro (one set buyers) 

Clarks No. 1 & 2— H. I. Johnson, S. A. McConkey 
Farmers No. 1 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 
Farmers No. 2 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 
Victory No. 1 & 2— Cliff Weeks, W. L. Leggett 

Wallace (one set buyers) 

Blanchard & Farrior — 0. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior 
Hussey No. 1 & 3 — ^Joe Bryant, Bill Hussey 
Sheffields— John Sheffield 
Farmers — H. G. Perry 

Washington (one set buyers) 

Sermon's — W. J. Sermon 
Talley-Hassell— W. G. Talley 

Wendell (one set buyers) 

Liberty-Farmer — H. H. & Berdon Eddins 
Northside — G. Dean, Bill Sanders 
Banner — C. P. Southerland 

Williamston (one set buyers) 

Rogers Warehouse — Urbin Rogers, Russell Rogers, Leland Barnhill 
New Dixie — C. Fisher Harris, J. Elmo Lilley 

Wilson (five sets buyers) 

Big Dixie — W. C. Thompson 

Wainwright — Geo. L. Wainwright 

Center Brick No. 1-2-3 — Cozart & Eagles Company 

Grovi^ers Cooperative — S. E. Griffin, Mgr. 

New Planters No. 1 & 2— R. T. & W. C. Smith 

17 



Smith Warehouse, Inc. — S. Grady Deans, John F. Deans 
Watson — U. H. Cozart, Jr. 
Clark's— C. R. Clark, W. B. Clark, Jr. 
New Liberty — Carl B. Renfro 
Bob's Warehouse— C. R. Clark 



Planters 1 & 2— C. B. & B. U. Griffin, Dave Newsom *■ 



Windsor (one set buyers) 

Planters 1 & 2— C. B. 

Farmers 1 & 2— Bill Jernigan, Bill Davis, M. W. Britt 

MIDDLE BELT 

Aberdeen (one set buyers) 

New Aberdeen — Mrs. Tom Faulkner 
Planters — W. Fentriss Phillips 
Hardee's — Hugh T. Hardee 

Carthage (one set buyers) 

McConnells — R. J. Brim, Jr. 

Victory — Buck Layton 

New Farmers Warehouse — Bill Carter, Sr., Billy Carter, Jr. 

Durham (three sets buyers) 
Liberty — Walker Stone 

Roycroft — H. T. & J. K. Roycroft, Randolph Currin 
Star — A. L. Carver, Cozart, Currin 

Farmers-Planters — J. M. Talley, Howard Talley, Bob Dale, Sam 
Mangum 

EUerbe (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Bill Maurer, Guy Sutton 
Richmond — County — W. H. Rummage 

Fuquay-Varina (two sets buyers) 

Big Top— Talley Brothers, E. E. Clayton 
New Deal— W. M., A. R. & A. L. Talley 
Goldleaf— J. W. Dale 
Carolina— P. L. Campbell, C. E. Knott 
Roberts — Joe, John & Earl Roberts 
Star — John Roberts 

Henderson (two sets buyers) 

Moore's Big Banner — A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat 

Carolina— J. S. Royster, M. H. High, B. W. Young 

Farmers — W. J. Alston, Jr. 

High Price— C. J. Fleming, C. B. Turner 

Liberty — (Jeorge T. Robertson 

Ellington— F. H. Ellington & Sons 

Gold Leaf — John K. Foster, Jr. 

Louisburg (one set buyers) 

Big Franklin— S. T. & H. B. Cottrell 

Ford's — Charlie Ford 

Friendly Four — James Speed, Gus McGhee 

28 



Oxford (two sets buyers) 
Banner — David Mitchell 

Mangum-Farmers — Julian Adcock, S. B. Knott 
Fleming No. 1 & 2— D. T. Currin, Sr. and Jr., F. 0. Finch 
Planters & Johnson— C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins, Jr., T. J. Currin 
Owens No. 1 & 2— J. S. Watkins, L. Gregory 
Granville— L. S. Bryan, Jr., Sherman Bullock, Sidney Sherman 
Yeargin — W. W. Yeargin 

Sanford (one set buyers) 

Twin City 1 & 2— W. M. Carter, T. V. Mansfield, Bill Carter, Jr. 

Morgan's — Jimmy Morgan 

Castleberry's— C. N. Castleberry, R. F. Castleberry 

Warrenton (one set buyers) 
Boyd's— W. P. Burwell 

Centre— M. P. Carroll, E. W. Radford, E. M. Moody 
Farmers — E. G. Tarwater 
Thompson — C. E. Thompson 
Currin's No. 1 & 2— C. W. Currin 

OLD BELT 

Burlington (one set buyers) 

Carolina — Lee Russell, Bob Rainey 
Coble — N. C. Newman, Joe Robertson 
Farmers- Bill McCauley, Glenn McCray 

Greensboro (one set buyers) 

Greensboro Tobacco Warehouse Co.— R. C. Coleman, Mgr. 

Guilford County Tobacco Warehouse Co.— H. P. Smothers, W. B. Hull 

Madison (one set buyers) 

New Brick— S. F. Webster, Lloyd Webster 
Carolina— S. P. Webster, Lee McCollum 

Sharpe & Smith Farmers— W. S. Smith, D. C. Hoilman, Banner 
Williams 

Mebane (one set buyers) 

Farmers 1 & 2— Joe Dillard, Jule Allen 

Piedmont Warehouses-A. 0. King, Jr., Billy Hopkins, Mutt 
Aldridge, Wray King 

Mt. Airy (one set buyers) 

New Farmers— Tom Jones, Buck White, 0. L. Badgett P. V Dearmin 

Hunters— J. W. & J. L. Hunter 

Dixie— W. H. Brown, H. Y. Hodges, Fred E. Chilton 

Reidsville (one set buyers) 

New Farmers— C. E. Smith, P. D. Michael, Philip Carter 
Leader-Watts— A. P. Sands, W. A. McKinney 
Smothers— T. G. & J. M. Smothers 



29 



Roxboro (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Lindsay Wagstaff, R. L. Hester 

Hyco — F. J. Hester, Jr. 

Foacre— H. W. Winstead, Jr., Pres. 

Planters No. 2— T. 0. Pass 

Pioneer — T. T. & Elmo Mitchell, Roy Carlton 

Stoneville (one set buyers) 

Joyce's No. 1 & 2—0. P. Joyce, Carl Pell 
Farmers — W. J. Chilton, Elmer Powell 

Piedmont — R. N. Linville, Robert Rakestraw, Clarence Peeples, G. 
Rakestraw, W. Q. Chilton 



Winston-Salem (four sets buyers) 

Carolina-Star — R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson, G. H. Robertson, g; 

H. M. Bouldin 

Growers— C. E. Joyce, W. G. Sheets, J. R. Pell, M. M. Joyner Cl 

Pepper No. 1 & 2 — F. L. Kellman, C. F. Hutchins, Joe & Baxter Cook 
Taylor — Paris M. Pepper, Kelly Ritter, John Nelson 
Big Winston— R. T. & J. F. Carter 
Cooks No. 1 & 2— B. E. Cook, William Fowler, Claude Strickland, Jr. 



Yadkinville (new 1967) 

Millers Tob. Warehouse — R. A. Owen 



BURLEY BELT 

Asheville (two sets buyers) 

Burley-Dixie No. 1 & 2 — R. A. Owen 
Planters No. 1 & 2— J. W. Stewart 
Walker Warehouse — James E. Walker 
Day's — Charlie Day 

Boone (one set buyers) 

Farmers & Big Burley — Joe E. Coleman 

West Jefferson (one set buyers) 

Tri-State Burley— C. C. Taylor, Rex Taylor 
Farmers Burley — Mrs. Tom Faulkner 



30 



STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 



James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Ex-Officio Chairman 

J. Atwell Alexander Stony Point 

Richard N. Barber, Jr. Waynesville 

Fred N. Colvard Jefferson 

Guy E. Fisher Pendleton 

Claude T. Hall ________ Roxboro 

George P. Kittrell _ __'_ Corapeake 

Charles F. Phillips Thomasville 

J. H. Poole West End 

Henry Gray Shelton Speed 

David Townsend. Jr Rowland 



31 



DOMESTIC CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION 
BY KINDS 1967 




Total Domestic Consumption 
528 Billion Cigarettes